mig-31bmNo one has said that the Foxhound cannot do the burn part of turn and burn. It simply cannot turn worth a damn.
i have explained the tactic you was describe is boom and zoom not turn and burn and it has nothing to do with the turning ability of aircraft
Then you are wrong, as it is the U.S. Air Force tests that showed the Six was more maneuverable than a Phantom.
The Phantom did have a greater thrust to weight advantage at some altitudes but Six pilots have said that while a Phantom could reach its mach limit quicker at some certain altitudes, the Six had a higher mach limit and used far, far less fuel meaning that if a Six and a Phantom got into a real fight the Phantom could not run as it would be out of fuel long before the Six was, plus the fact the Six could simply run it down.
how long the f-106 gonna fly before it can catch the f-4 ?? ,even if f-106 turn better the f-4 just need to create the distance so that it can disappear from f-106 radar fov or make a 180 degree turn
F-106 wing loading = 255 kg/m2
F-22 wing loading = 375 kg/m2
EF-2000 wing loading = 312 kg/m2
rafale wing loading = 306 kg/m2
f-16 wing loading =431 kg/m2
Gripen wing loading = 283 kg/m2
mirage 2000c wing loading = 337 kg/m2The Six could theoretically turn inside of any of these, that is the turn part, thrust to weight and recovery of speed , the burn part determines how well that can be used and that depends on altitude.
really dont know what to say , are you really think the f-106 can out turn ef-2000 or f-22
– Yes the Foxhound could get away with speed, but then the test showed the Six cold fly that speed without destroying an engine and the scenario for a Six on a tail chase of A Foxhound never existed, yet if it had happened the Foxhound would have eventually self-destructed at speeds above 1,864 mph.
Now at Mach 2.8 the Foxhound could have simply slowly pulled away.
mig-31 have much superior thrust/weight (1.30 ) , higher top speed ( less high speed drag ) , so no it not pull away slowly , it pull away very fast , it like a race between a Formula One and bugatti http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBzc5Lnyhks ( except that mig-31 also have higher top speed )
btw for how far can the F-106 fly at mach 2.7 ? 100 miles or 200 miles ? i can dont think it can ever mach the mig-31 range — Theoretically, it could go approx. 500 miles , plus or minus, before needing a tanker.
where that 500 miles come from or you just make it up
mig-31bmThe top speed of the (real) MiG-31 is not mach three and above. Where are you getting this from?
the thrust-to-drag ratio is sufficient for speeds in excess of Mach 3, but such speeds pose unacceptable hazards to engine and airframe life in routine use
mig-31bmAll you have demonstrated is that any design is likely to work best at the range of altitudes for which it was optimised. You have not addressed your claim that the AIM-120 is optimised for medium/low latitudes, and that its performance falls off badly at height.
that conclusion is due to the fact that F-16 can’t fly really high , f-15 can fly at high altitude but not very high like mig-31 , also aim-120 have quite small wing even smaller in latter version ( C , D have smaller wing than A , B ) , smaller wing often mean less lift , less ability to maneuver when the air thin
It is not the amount of propellant that counts, but the proportion of the weight of the missile that is made up of propellant. Missile engineers (and I used to be one) use the term ‘mass ratio’ for this important parameter.
Burn time of the AIM-7F was 3.5 sec, while (if my memory is correct) that of the AIM-120 is around 5.5 sec.
You also need to consider the way that the motor thrust varies with time.
only 5.5 sec so basically by the time aim-120 reached the mig-31 altitude it will have no thrust left , how could it turn to attack mig-31 ?
as a missiles engineers how long do you think the burn time of Meteor ( 10 sec ? )
mig-31bmThe F-8 was a Navy plane and the Six could spank a F-5 by the simple fact it could pull away and re-engage at will.
the mig-31 can do exactly the same thing due to it’s superior thrust/weight and top speed
By the U.S. Air Force’s own test and commentary, the Six was the only aircraft that could take on a Mig-21 heads-up, and it was those tests that brought about the Six getting a gun.
really doubt that the F-4 was said to be more maneuver at lower altitude and superior to mig-21 in vertical at most altitude , the F-5 is quite the same as mig-21
The Six had a wing loading of 52 lb/ft squared, the F-5 had 133 lb/ft squared.
F-106 wing loading = 255 kg/m2
F-22 wing loading = 375 kg/m2
EF-2000 wing loading = 312 kg/m2
rafale wing loading = 306 kg/m2
f-16 wing loading =431 kg/m2
Gripen wing loading = 283 kg/m2
mirage 2000c wing loading = 337 kg/m2
wow so now by follow your logic the F-106 simply much more maneuver than any other gen 4 , gen 4. or gen 5 fighter , the f-22 simply a brick , it only better than the f-16 in the list ????????
You continually spewed out performance at the not recommended limits of the Mig-31 as standard, well the Air Force’s unofficial official tests of the Six showed it was capable of flying at Mach 2.7 and flying at, not zoom and drop, 83,000. ft.
So if I were to use your standards I would quote those continually and say, do to the fact that the Six was an excellent dog-fighter it was the best of all time, blah, blah, blah.The Mig-31 is an excellent interceptor which I am sure the Chinese have great respect, and maybe fear, for but that is all it is, period.
well top speed of mig-31 = mach 3 much faster than mach 2.7 , top altitude 125 K feet so much higher than 83 K feet too ?
btw for how far can the F-106 fly at mach 2.7 ? 100 miles or 200 miles ? i can dont think it can ever mach the mig-31 range
not to mention F-106 have quite a short range missiles so high speed quite useless ( it’s weapon bay is too short for the aim-120 or other long range missiles
mig-31bm— No existing fighter and the only one in the past that could come close was the Six, as a pilot told me– if you put the pedal to the metal she would go like a bat out of hell but in twenty minutes or so you would be looking for an airfield or a tanker.
The Mig-31 was actually the Soviet Unions response to the F-106. The Mig could go a little higher and was a little faster but the Six was the U.S. Air Force best dog fighter till the F-16 came along.
Funny how the Soviets missed that part.
the mig-31 go alot higher and faster than the f-106 man , and no the f-106 is not the best dogfighter of it’s time , it may be the the best interceptor but not dogfighter and never come close to the like F-8 , F-5
and what you mean by ” so what ” ????? you say ” turn and burn ” is the tatic only appear when we have jet but then i prove exactly otherwise , the ” pull away and re-engage ” is ” boom and zoom ” not ” turn and burn ” and that exactly the reason why i say the mig-31 is not inferior in WVR caused it have superior T/W and top speed
mig-31bmNot by a mile, this is why instability was introduced with 4.5 & 5 gen fighters, built for A2A combat, (exempting F-35 which is a bomber)
for the explicit purpose of remaining agile at supersonic speed.
Also take note on the fundamentally important wing loading at alt.EF 311 kg/m^2
Rafale 326 kg/m^2
Gripen 336 kg/m^2
F-15 358 kg/m^2
Su-27 371 kg/m^2
F-22 375 kg/m^2
F-4 phantom 383 kg/m^2
F-16C Block30 430 kg/m^2
F-35 446 kg/m^2
MiG-31 665 kg/m^2Boeing 747 727 kg/m^2
(Lower=better)
so now f-4 and f-15 is more agile than f-16 ? and gripen , ef-2000 , rafale , f-15 simply out class the f-22 in term of maneuver
btw instability was introduced since f-16A
mig-31bmThat is the dilemma, MiG-31 don’t turn well at any speed or altitude
do it even need to turn well ? what stop it from decelerating or make a zoom climb after launching missiles ?
even if the turn radius of mig-31 is a lot bigger so what ?
imagine this if the turn radius of F-22 is 1 km , and the mig-31 is 5km ( 5 times worst ) it still unlikely to affect the performer if the missiles is launching from 80-100 km , and remember that at high altitude , high speed the f-22 is not much better than mig-31 in term of turning if not worse
mig-31bmThose other fighters faces the same problem, but they are agile enough to turn tail after launch,
and that is why they have a longer practical effective range vs the opponent
do you have any number to back it up , i really doubt the supersonic maneuver at high altitude of fighter like Typhoon , f-22 ..etc they are not going to do 9g like at low altitude
Also your assumption about turn capability is wrong. At high mach numbers, all other 4th gens will have very little excess power to sustain a turn. Instantenious turns are also problematic, because G limits are more restirictive at high speeds. For example, F-15 (55000 lbs) at 20k feet is limited to just 4,8Gs at M1,05, or 6,5Gs at 40k feet M2,2. MiG-31 with 5G limit will have comperable (sometimes better sometimes worse) instantenious turn rates and with its great excess power, better sustained turn rates.
WVR capability of MiG-31 maybe nonexistant, but its high supersonic maneuverability, climb and turn peformance will easily put F-15, Typhoon or F-22 to shame.
mig-31bmYes, but the high approach speed of the MiG-31 also means it is flying straight into a revenge missile much faster,
and MiG-31 really does fly straight.
DRDO said Astra Mark 2 “will have a 93-mile head on range with a tail chase range of 21 miles.”
What does “will have a 93-mile head on range with a tail chase range of 21 miles.” mean ?
It means that if MiG-31 fly straight into a missile,
it will have to launch its own missile over 5 times as long distance as the opposing fighter armed with an amraam
doesn’t it the exact the same problem when fighter like typhoon , rafale , gripen , f-22 launch their missile at high speed ? but they still choose to have supercruise
and what stop the mig-31 from decelerate or make zoom climb or turn aways after launch it’s missiles ?
mig-31bmYes, it is all true…..but they retained the agility to make a U-turn after a shot at close range.
A missile launched at an initial speed of M2.5 will reach an even higher speed than a missile launched at M1.5,
but that missile will also decelerate much quicker initially.
The speed of MiG-31 gives an advantage no doubt, but is it enough to offset the lack of agility ?
I think not when it comes to air superiority,
it has been tried before, with Starfighter and all the fighters of the 60’s,
is it necessary for the mig-31 to be able to make the U-turn at close range ?? it missiles have longer effective range , faster speed , fired from higher altitude , it’s missiles will simply reach target much sooner and even if they all miss mig-31 can run aways before get in close range simply nothing can chase it , at high altitude air is quite thin so basically missiles will decelerate quite slow and at any situation missiles from mig-31 will reach target much quicker with alot more energy as they dont have to climb to reach target .BTW Tell me how many G can f-22 or typhoon can turn at 50-60K feet at mach 1.7 ?? not much probably not even as good as the mig-31 , someone have explained it several page ago : in term of supersonic maneuver the mig-31 will simply put f-22 to shame
mig-31bmAre you just obtuse or what.
In a dogfight, with modern jets, a pilot will use what ever tactic he thinks will work, not just to win but if necessary to clear out and come back another day.
In ‘Nam, some pilots used variations of the WWI Lufberry Circle.There was no turn and burn before Korea and it is the after-burner that really gave it the name turn and burn.
no you are wrong
No Allied fighter could “turn and burn” with a Zero. It became the most numerous of all Japanese fighters, with about 10,500 of all models produced.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/1v1_zero_wildcat.htm
You just cannot accept the fact that the Mig-31 as a fighter has an very serious Achilles Heel.
The one thing you forget in your six hundred plus miles above the Mach item you keep trotting out, is that if that aircraft did not find a tanker soon after that, he would have taken the silk-road home.
.
tell me what fighter could do better than that ? it 650 miles at mach 2.5 , even the super uber f-22 that everyone keep praying can only go 100 nm at mach 1.7
mig-31bmMiG-31BM with R-73s. http://russianplanes.net/id86748, http://russianplanes.net/id86743
MiG-31 can fly with R-60s at Mach 2.35 2 minutes or less, at Mach 2.2 8min or less.
i kind of doubt this figure , there is case that mig-31 fly at mach 2.6 for 650 miles
mig-31bmA one pony trick fighter would soon be countered with tactics, it has before in history,
best is an all round good balanced fighter, at an affordable price for a sufficient quantity.
how bias
you always brags about how Typhoon ,gripen , Rafale , F-22 , PAK-FA superior to f-35 and gen 4 fighter because they have higher top speed and cruise speed thus make their missiles range longer , enemy’s missiles useless and that they can use speed to escape if they want but when the subject is mig-31 then the logic suddenly not applied ???
in term of speed :
f-35 , f-16 cruise at mach 0.8-1.2
typhoon cruise at mach 1.5
f-22 cruise at mach 1.7 ( for 100 nm )
mig-31 cruise at mach 2.6 (for 650 miles )
remember the mig-31 isnot only much faster but also flying at much higher altitude as well so the different between mig-31 vs F-22 , PAK-FA , typhoon is even higher than the different between these AC vs F-16 , f-35 ..etc
mig-31bmIn a dogfight, turn and burn means one has the g capability to out turn, or turn with an opponent but also has the speed to get clear and clear out or re-attack at the pilots prerogative.
Speed and rate of climb is the burn part of turn and burn.
One advantage U.S. pilots said the Mig-21 had was while it could not super cruise, it could at altitude go round and round and round at a very high rate of speed while burning little fuel taunting U.S. pilots.
The fuel penalty U.S. aircraft would suffer meant they often simply could do nothing except break-off and go home.A Mig-31 can only burn.
you are wrong on so many part probably you should re-read the different between ” turn and burn ” vs ” boom and zoom ” vs ” energy fighting “
The is the odd thing.
The Russians know how to build a dog-fighter, i.e. Mig-21 good example.There must be something in the rigid way the way the Russian govt. deals with industry that the Mig-31 lacks that.
If it could turn and burn, it would be twice as deadly.
turn and burn become much much less important since WW II
mig-31bmHave you any evidence for those claims?
it just basically physics , a bigger wing provide more lift but also more drag , thus at low , medium altitude a fighter with high wing loading like f-16 will be more agile than f-15. while at high altitude small wing doesnot provide enough lift for aircraft to turn thus aircraft with big wing like f-15 is more agile at that altitude ( same can be say for missile )
Higher speed was another design goal for AMRAAM. Published speed figures are never very reliable, since they rarely specify launch conditions. But what we do know is that in proportion to its length, AMRAAM has a longer rocket motor that any AIM-7 variant. That means either a longer burn time or more thrust.
it was a goal doesnot mean aim-120 have that ( many weapon fail to achieve their goal ) and how much faster ? 100-200 km/h ? doesn’t make any different
aim-120 may have longer rocket motor but aim-7 have bigger diameter =more rocket fuel so the aim-120 doesn’t necessary have longer burn time or thrust
Sign In
